💾 Archived View for gmi.noulin.net › mobileNews › 889.gmi captured on 2023-09-08 at 18:57:36. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Spiral of silence

2008-12-16 06:34:16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The spiral of silence is a political science and mass communication theory

propounded by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. The

theory asserts that a person is less likely to voice an opinion on a topic if

one feels that one is in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation from

the majority (Anderson 1996: 214; Miller 2005: 277).

Basic framework

The spiral of silence begins with fear of reprisal or isolation, and escalates

from there. Individuals use what is described as "an innate ability" or

quasi-statistical sense to gauge public opinion (Miller 2005: 278). Mass media

plays a large part in determining what the dominant opinion is, since our

direct observation is limited to a small percentage of the population. Mass

media has an enormous impact on how public opinion is portrayed, and can

dramatically impact an individual's perception about where public opinion lies,

whether or not that portrayal is factual (Scheufele and Moy 1999).

Noelle-Neumann describes the spiral of silence as a dynamic process, in which

predictions about public opinion become fact as mass media's coverage of the

majority opinion becomes the status quo, and the minority becomes less likely

to speak out (Miller 2005:278). The theory, however, only applies to moral

issues, not issues that can be proven right or wrong using facts.

Uses and limitations

It is as much a measure of protection as it is one of oppression. Since it only

applies to moral issues, which tend to evoke passionate responses in even the

most reserved individuals, it can be used to contain social unrest over highly

controversial topics. Though it can aid in keeping civil order, attempts to

employ it knowingly are essentially methods of manipulation and coercion.

Overcoming the silence

The theory explains a vocal minority by stating that people who are highly

educated, or who have greater affluence, and the few other cavalier individuals

who do not fear isolation, are likely to speak out regardless of public opinion

(Miller 2005: 279). It further states that this minority is a necessary factor

of change while the compliant majority is a necessary factor of stability, with

both being a product of evolution.

Current research

The spiral of silence tends to be the outcome of something controversial and

political in nature. For that reason most current research focuses on

hot-button social issues such as smoking, and the aftermath of September 11,

2001 (Shanahan et al. 2004). It focuses mainly on current events, and can

indicate shifts in societal norms and value structures. The theory seems valid

when examining westernized cultures, but studies have failed to take into

account cross-cultural differences that may affect one's willingness to speak

out (Scheufele and Moy 1999). Research has also started looking more into

individual differences--that some people more than others are inclined to use

cues about the opinion climate when deciding whether to speak out (Hayes,

Glynn, and Shanahan, 2005a, 2005b).

Questions regarding the spiral of silence on the Internet

Isolating the Factors that Remove Isolation

The concept of isolation has a variety of definitions, dependent upon the

circumstances it is investigated in. In one instance the problem of isolation

has been defined as social withdrawal, defined as low relative frequencies of

peer interaction (O Connor, 1969, 1972). Other researchers have defined

isolation as low levels of peer acceptance or high levels of peer rejection

(Gottman, Gonso, & Rasmussen 1975). Research that considers isolation with

regards to the Internet either focuses on either how the Internet makes

individuals more isolated from society by cutting off their contact from live

human beings (Kraut et al 1998; Moody, 2001; Sleek, 1998) or how the Internet

decreases social isolation of people by allowing them to expand their social

networks and giving them more means to stay in touch with friends and family

(Morris & Ogan, 2002; Bradley & Poppen, 2003). Since the development of the

Internet, and in particular the World Wide Web, a wide variety of groups have

come into existence, including Web and Internet Relay Chat (IRC), newsgroups,

multiuser dimensions (MUDs), and, more recently, commercial virtual communities

(Sassenberg, 2002). The theories and hypotheses about how Internet-based groups

impact individuals are numerous and wide-ranging. Some researchers view these

fast growing virtual chat cliques, online games, or computer-based marketplaces

as a new opportunity, particularly for stigmatized people, to take a more

active part in social life (Rheingold, 1993; Cummings, Sproull, & Kiesler,

2002; McKenna & Bargh, 1998).

Traditionally, social isolation has been represented as a one-dimensional

construct organized around the notion of a person s position outside the peer

group and refers to isolation from the group as a result of being excluded from

the group by peers (Bowker, Bukowski, Zargarpour & Hoza, 1998). From children

to adults, literature shows that people understand the concept of isolation and

fear the repercussions of being isolated from groups they are a part of.

Fearing isolation, people would not feel free to speak up if they feel they

hold dissenting views, which means people restrict themselves to having

conversation with like-minded, or have no conversation whatsoever (Witschge,

2002). Witschge (2002) further explains, "Whether it is fear of harming others,

or fear to get harmed oneself, there are factors that inhibit people from

speaking freely, and which thus results in a non-ideal type of discussion, as

it hinders diversity and equality of participants and viewpoints to arise

fully" (p. 8).

The medium of the Internet has the power to free people from the fear of social

isolation, and in doing so, shuts down the spiral of silence. The Internet

allows people to find a place where they can find groups of people with like

mindsets and similar points of view. Van Alstyne and Brynjolfsson (1996) stated

that Internet users can seek out interactions with like-minded individuals who

have similar values, and thus become less likely to trust important decisions

to people whose values differ from their own (p. 24). The features of the

Internet could not only bring about more people to deliberate by freeing people

of the psychological barriers, but also by brings new possibilities in that it

makes manageable large- scale, many-to-many discussion and deliberation

(Coleman & G tze, 2001, p. 17). Unlike traditional media that limit

participation, the Internet brings the characteristics of empowerment, enormous

scales of available information, specific audiences can be targeted effectively

and people can be brought together through the medium (O'Hara, 2002).

Heterogeneity & Anonymity

The nature of the Internet facilitates not only the participation of more

people, but also of a more heterogeneous group of people. Page (1996) stated

The onward rush of electronic communications technology will presumably

increase the diversity of available ideas and the speed and ease with which

they fly about and compete with each other (p. 124). The reason people engage

in deliberations is because of their differences, and the Internet allows

differences to be easily found. The Internet seems the perfect place to find

different views of a very diverse group of people who are at the same time open

to such difference and disagreement needed for deliberation. As stated

previously, people avoid deliberation because they fear the consequences.

Noelle-Neumann s initial idea of cowering and muted citizens is difficult to

reconcile with empirical studies documenting uninhibited discussion in

computer-mediated contexts such as chatrooms and newsgroups (Wanta & Dimitrova,

2000; O Sullivan, 1995; Sproull & Kiesler, 1992; Hlitz, Johnson & Turoff,

1986).

The Internet provides an anonymous setting, and it can be argued that in an

anonymous setting, fears of isolation and humiliation would be reduced. Wallace

(1999) recognized When people believe their actions cannot be attributed to

them personally, they tend to become less inhibited by social conventions and

restraints. This can be very positive, particularly when people are offered the

opportunity to discuss difficult personal issues under conditions in which they

feel safer (p. 124-125).

The groups ability to taunt an individual is lessened on the Internet, thus

reducing the tendency to conform. Wallace (1999) goes on to summarize a number

of empirical studies that do find that dissenters feel more liberated to

express their views online than offline which might result from the fact that

the person in the minority would not have to endure taunts or ridicule from

people that are making up the majority, or be made to feel uncomfortable for

having a different opinion. Stromer-Galley (2002) considered that the following

characteristics of the online conversation free people from the psychological

barriers that keep them from engaging in a face-to-face deliberation; an

absence of non-verbal cues, which leads to a lowered sense of social presence,

and a heightened sense of anonymity (p. 35). Computer mediated communication

decreases social cues, and an absence of non-verbal communication should limit

the capacity for ridicule and humiliation when people are physically isolated

from each other. In an online discussion group, one possible result is that

extreme opinions become muted and thus appear more moderate than they really

are. Categorization effects are less likely if other persons are perceived as

abstract entities.

The crux of the spiral of silence is that people believe consciously or

subconsciously that the expression of unpopular opinions will lead to negative

repercussions. These beliefs may not exist on the Internet for several reasons.

First, embarrassment and humiliation depends on the physical presence of

others. In computer-mediated communication, physical isolation often already

exists and poses no further threat (McDevitt, Kiousis, &Wahl-Jorgensen, 2003).

Second, a great deal of normative influence is communicated through nonverbal

cues, such as eye contact and gestures (Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989), but

computer-mediated communication typically precludes many of these cues. Third,

Keisler, Siegel, and McQuire (1984) observe that nonverbal social context cues

convey formality and status inequality in face-to-face communication. When

these cues are removed, the importance of social status as source of influence

recedes. Group hierarchies that develop in face-to-face interaction emerge less

clearly in a mediated environment (Williams, 1977). The form and consequences

of conformity influence should undergo significant changes given the

interposition of a medium that reduces the social presence of participants

(McDevitt, Kiousis, &Wahl-Jorgensen, 2003). Social presence is defined as the

degree of salience of the other person in the interaction (Short, Williams, &

Christie, 1976), or the degree to which the medium conveys some of the person s

presence (Rice & Williams, 1984).

Equality

An important issue in obtaining heterogeneity in conversation is equal access

for all the participants and equal opportunities to influence in the

discussion. When people believe they are ignorant about a topic, incapable to

participate in a discussion or that they are not equal to their peers, they

tend to not even become involved in a deliberation. When people do decide to

participate, their participation might be overruled by dominant others, or

their contribution might be valued less or more, depending on their status

((McDevitt, Kiousis, &Wahl-Jorgensen, 2003). Dahlberg (2001) praises the

Internet for its possibility to liberate people from the social hierarchies and

power relations that exist offline. "The blindness of cyberspace to bodily

identity...[is supposed to allow] people to interact as if they were equals.

Arguments are said to be assessed by the value of the claims themselves and not

the social position of the poster" (p. 14).

Gastil (2000) sees this feature as one of the strongest points of the Internet:

if computer-mediated interaction can consistently reduce the independent

influence of status, it will have a powerful advantage over face-to-face

deliberation (p.359). Another characteristic that seems to become less

important is status. In a discussion forum, your words would carry more weight

than your socioeconomic position. While status cues are difficult to detect,

perceptions about the status converge, and this lessens stereotyping and

prejudice (Wallace, 1999).

It may be that people do feel more equal in online forums, than they feel

offline. For one thing is certain: racism, ageism, and other kinds of

discrimination against out groups seems to be diminishing because the cues to

out-group status are not as obvious (Wallace, 1999, p. 99). Next to this, the

Internet has rapidly and dramatically increased the capacities to develop,

share and organize information (Warren, 2001), realizing more equality of

access to information (Gimmler, 2001). This might in time lead to more equal

informed citizens with more equal capacities to deliberate.

The idea that social isolations cannot exist on the internet must not be

confused with the effects that the Internet has on isolating individuals within

society. One idea focuses on how the Internet has a positive or negative effect

on people s lives though their usage of the Internet. The idea behind this

examination was to focus on the interactions that take place on the Internet.

Recent literature has brought up the ideas that the Internet reduces social

cues, facilitates a lowered sense of social presence and allows users to remain

relatively anonymous. All of these ideas lend themselves to a possible

hypothesis that they all eliminate the potential for social isolation on the

Internet. Further research is needed to test that hypothesis, but if proven, it

will show that the spiral of silence cannot exist within the medium of the

Internet.